Planning board backs ADU changes and mixed‑use ("Mr. Codd") overhaul, after detailed debate over height, uses and nonconforming rules

The Town of Falmouth Planning Board on Oct. 8 recommended six warrant articles that would revise the town’s zoning bylaws, including changes to accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules and a major overhaul of the Mixed Residential & Commercial overlay (referred to repeatedly in discussion as the 'Mr. Codd' overlay).

Staff summary and ADU changes Jed Horner and Tom Flanner of the Planning Department reviewed the redlined warrant text the board will send to Town Meeting. The board agreed with staff recommendation to replace the term 'accessory apartment' with 'Accessory Dwelling Unit' to align local language with the state Affordable Homes Act. Staff also recommended removing local owner‑occupancy requirements and two clauses that limited the number of bedrooms on an ADU‑lot (items 8 and 9), while retaining overlay‑based protections (items 10 and 11) that apply in the Coastal Pond Overlay District and the Water Resource Protection Overlay District.

"Not only has that been removed, but in your so I'm just gonna scroll back to the original language," Jed Horner explained while showing the redline on screen. The board discussed that the Affordable Homes Act permits minimum rental terms (the Act allows communities to restrict short‑term rentals and Horner noted the Act recognizes six‑month minimum rentals).

Home occupation and definition fixes Staff proposed a scrivener’s correction in Article 34 (changing references from 9.5 to 9.6) and an updated definition set in Article 35. Those were presented as non‑substantive clarifications and received no public commentary.

Mixed Residential & Commercial Overlay (Article 15) Staff gave a lengthy walkthrough of Article 15. Key proposed changes include: - Allowing a lot split between two underlying zoning districts to be treated in whole under the overlay (so the entire lot may be eligible for Mr. Codd provisions rather than only the portion in a business district); - Clarifying whether 'commercial accommodations' (for example, hotels) are eligible non‑residential uses in mixed‑use projects — staff flagged a conflict and recommended the board deliberate that item before finalizing the warrant text; - Reducing the minimum lot size for eligibility from 10,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet after a town analysis found 64 parcels excluded under the 10,000 sq ft threshold; and - Allowing the Planning Board to grant special permits to exceed maximum lot coverage and to grant flexibility on parking when applicants propose mitigation strategies (shared parking, shuttle service).

Height, setbacks and nonconforming structures The board engaged in an extended debate over the overlay’s height allowances (board members discussed minimum two stories, and staff proposed allowing buildings up to 40 feet on many parcels and up to 50 feet in limited circumstances on parcels over five acres), and the ripple effects for setbacks and compatibility. Staff described a numeric trade‑off: for each foot a building exceeds the base allowed height the applicant would be required to add two feet of setback from an abutting residential use. Board member Bob Mitchell urged caution about taller buildings and protecting neighborhood character; Attorney Peter Freeman, representing developers, argued additional height was often necessary for affordable housing economics and noted it would apply to relatively few large parcels.

Board actions After public comment and deliberation, the board took motions to recommend Articles 15, 16, 17, 34, 35 and 36 to the Town Meeting warrant as amended. Each motion was seconded and carried by voice vote ('Aye'). Staff will incorporate edits discussed at the meeting, and the finalized warrant language will go into the Town Meeting materials.

Why it matters: The ADU changes remove certain local constraints to conform to state law and aim to make smaller rental options easier to permit. The Mr. Codd overlay revisions are designed to broaden eligibility for mixed‑use redevelopment and to provide clearer rules for density, parking and design flexibility — but they also prompted board debate about what taller buildings would mean for town character and abutting residential areas.

Next steps: The board will forward its recommendations and amended text to be printed in the warrant booklet for Town Meeting; staff said they will also prepare illustrative examples to help voters and neighbors visualize the height/setback tradeoffs.